Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

lpress writes "In the mid 1990s, there was debate within the Cuban government about the Internet. A combination of pressure from the U.S. trade embargo, the financial crisis brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union and fear of free expression led to a decision to limit Internet access. This has left Cuba with sparse, antiquated domestic infrastructure today.
Could the government improve the situation if they decided to do so? They don't have sufficient funds to build out modern infrastructure and foreign investment through privatization of telecommunication would be difficult to obtain. Furthermore, that strategy has not benefited the people in other developing nations.
A decentralized strategy using a large number of satellite links could quickly bootstrap the Cuban Internet. Decentralized funding and control of infrastructure has been an effective transitional strategy in other cases, for example, with the NSFNET in the U.S. or the Grameen Phone ladies in Bangladesh.
This proposal would face political roadblocks in both the US and Cuba; however, change is being considered in the U.S. and the Castro government has been experimenting with small business and they have begun allowing communication agents to sell telephone and Internet time. It might just work — as saying goes "Be realistic. Demand the impossible.""

Cuba is a totalitarian communist dictatorship [worldaffairsjournal.org]. That dictatorship has absolutely no interest in a decentralized Internet solution. Cuba's police state was set up by Che Guevara [worldaffairsjournal.org], who modeled it on that of his NKVD/KGB tutor, Lavrenty Beria.

The communist government has exactly zero interest in "decentralization."

Tell me, if the exact same thing is true of capitalism, then why is it that all of the self identified capitalist societies have the highest education rates, highest literacy rates, and highest standards of living for everybody overall?

Compare that to self identified socialist states where quality of life and education are the worst. Notice how as China has been sliding away from socialism and more towards capitalism, the quality of life and individual liberties have improved.

Another example: North Korea chose communism, South Korea chose capitalism. South Vietnam chose capitalism and when the North took over, they were forced into education camps followed by being forced into doing free labor for no reward other than the supposed "greater good." Vietnam has only recently begun to embrace capitalism again, and their economy is beginning to grow.

Look at Venezuela where the glorious socialist revolution has caused that country to fall into its current period where people have the fewest freedoms they've ever had, to the near point where the president is almost a dictator, and death by murder is more common there than Iraq. Cuba used to be capitalist as well, and look at how poor they became once the "great socialist revolution" occurred.

Yes, capitalism has its faults, and no system is perfect, but anybody who thinks socialism is any better than capitalism is dumber than a young world creationist. The evidence against that idea is so strong yet they are just flat out oblivious to it because it conflicts with their ideology of out things "ought to be."